[PATCH] clocksource/drivers/sun4i: Wait for pending reload before CTRL write
Ondřej Jirman
megi at xff.cz
Wed Aug 12 04:09:46 PDT 2026
Hello Daniel,
On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 11:56:03AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 7/25/26 13:33, Ondřej Jirman wrote:
> > From: Ondrej Jirman <megi at xff.cz>
> >
> > The A13 manual says of TMR0_RELOAD: "After the bit is set, it can not be
> > written again before it's cleared automatically." Both time_stop() and
> > time_start() read-modify-write the control register, so a reload still in
> > flight gets rewritten and the write can be dropped, leaving the timer
> > unarmed. In oneshot mode this happens on every tick, and the tick
> > eventually stops for good.
> >
> > Wait for the reload to clear first. All control register updates go
> > through sun4i_clkevt_time_stop().
> >
> > Without this my Allwinner A13 based Pocketbook Touch Lux 3 stops
> > scheduling processes during boot or within a few seconds of executing
> > userspace. Only sysrq+t over serial port works at this stage, which is
> > how I discovered the root cause.
> >
> > Fixes: 7e14183469d8 ("clocksource: sun4i: Fix bug when switching from periodic to oneshot modes")
> > Signed-off-by: Ondrej Jirman <megi at xff.cz>
> > ---
> > BTW, similar issue will likely be also in timer-sun5i.c but I don't have any
> > device that would exercise it. And it's possible that this triggers more easily
> > with CONFIG_HZ=1000 which I use.
> >
> > drivers/clocksource/timer-sun4i.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/timer-sun4i.c b/drivers/clocksource/timer-sun4i.c
> > index 7bdcc60ad43c..2e7457f671c4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clocksource/timer-sun4i.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clocksource/timer-sun4i.c
> > @@ -39,6 +39,9 @@
> > #define TIMER_SYNC_TICKS 3
> > +/* The reload bit clears a couple of source clock cycles after it is set. */
> > +#define TIMER_RELOAD_MAX_POLL 100
> > +
> > /*
> > * When we disable a timer, we need to wait at least for 2 cycles of
> > * the timer source clock. We will use for that the clocksource timer
> > @@ -53,9 +56,30 @@ static void sun4i_clkevt_sync(void __iomem *base)
> > cpu_relax();
> > }
> > +/*
> > + * The control register must not be written while a reload is still in
> > + * flight, or the write can be dropped.
> > + */
> > +static int sun4i_clkevt_wait_reload(void __iomem *base, u8 timer)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < TIMER_RELOAD_MAX_POLL; i++) {
> > + if (!(readl(base + TIMER_CTL_REG(timer)) & TIMER_CTL_RELOAD))
> > + return 0;
> > + cpu_relax();
> > + }
>
> The loop looks correct but I'm wondering why not use the helper:
>
> ret = readl_poll_timeout_atomic(base + TIMER_CTL_REG(timer), val,
> !(val & TIMER_CTL_RELOAD), 0, timeout);
>
I can. The only difference would be that this would loop up to 1000 * timeout
times, instead of 100 times in case reload bit never returns to 0. But that
never happens anyway.
> > + return -ETIME;
> > +}
> > +
> > static void sun4i_clkevt_time_stop(void __iomem *base, u8 timer)
> > {
> > - u32 val = readl(base + TIMER_CTL_REG(timer));
> > + u32 val;
> > +
> > + sun4i_clkevt_wait_reload(base, timer);
>
> If it fails ?
There's not much to do, since sun4i_clkevt_time_stop() does not return anything
anyway and it's used across the file quite extensively. Well, the file is small,
but sun4i_clkevt_time_stop is called in every function exported via timer_of
struct... :)
I can rewrite all these functions to report all errors to timer core, but in
practice reload always resets very quickly, and a condition where the loop even
loops happens once every few seconds or so. I doubt anything but return 0
would ever happen anyway. I'd certainly notice, because it would again cause
instant lockup of my e-reader. Maybe I can just return void from
sun4i_clkevt_wait_reload() and not pretend there are errors to report,
instead?
Best regards,
o.
> > +
> > + val = readl(base + TIMER_CTL_REG(timer));
> > writel(val & ~TIMER_CTL_ENABLE, base + TIMER_CTL_REG(timer));
> > sun4i_clkevt_sync(base);
> > }
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list